Tweet
Sam Flynn: Three things, Fish:
1. Press reports often used the same source, via press agencies and the like, for part or all of their articles. That being the case, they're sometimes not quite the "independent" sources we'd like.
... and that was the exact reason I took care to point out that they SHOULD be independent, since the corroboration would otherwise be imaginative in many a case.
2. We're still talking about summaries (some of them in prose) and not verbatim, stenographed transcripts of what was actually said.
Yep. And sometimes very much is condensed into very little. I know that full well. But I also know that when independent sources make the same call about what should go into the condensed versions, then we have good cause to rely on them to a significant degree.
3. Space was limited, deadlines had to be met, papers had to sell. All these factors combine to render press reports at times incomplete, misleading and error-prone in varying degrees.
I am in no way contesting that - it only takes a quick look at how the different sources give varying names and addresses many a time to realize that risks are involved. Then again, we owe our knowledge of the case to the papers to a very high degree, and this knowledge has been sifted through a filter of very critical people for many a decade. What is left is therefore more often than not reliable.
The real problems arise when cherrypicking becomes the order of the day; when reports that deviate are chosen because they seemingly fit a theory.
Then again, reports can deviate in many ways. If we, for example, take the Echo report that speaks of Robert Paul as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street", then we have one single paper mentioning this.
Should we disbelieve it, since it is the sole source telling us this?
Not necessarily, no - since it is not in conflict with the other papers. They do not say anything at all about Paulīs movements. The only paper that points out a direction and movement of Robert Paul is the Echo.
Of course, whenever I mention this passage, I am myself accused of cherrypicking! And maybe thatīs as it should be - caution is healthy. But it deserves to be pointed out that the article potentially is the one that has the most quality built in, going that extra mile to explain more thoroughly what happened.
And this is the crucial thing - we must always judge each and every source on itīs own merits - and people will sometimes be around to imply less noble intentions when we do so...
Indeed, but we must be very, very careful before drawing any conclusions from them.
I donīt think we disagree on that point, Gareth. Not at all, in fact.
All the best,
Fisherman
1. Press reports often used the same source, via press agencies and the like, for part or all of their articles. That being the case, they're sometimes not quite the "independent" sources we'd like.
... and that was the exact reason I took care to point out that they SHOULD be independent, since the corroboration would otherwise be imaginative in many a case.
2. We're still talking about summaries (some of them in prose) and not verbatim, stenographed transcripts of what was actually said.
Yep. And sometimes very much is condensed into very little. I know that full well. But I also know that when independent sources make the same call about what should go into the condensed versions, then we have good cause to rely on them to a significant degree.
3. Space was limited, deadlines had to be met, papers had to sell. All these factors combine to render press reports at times incomplete, misleading and error-prone in varying degrees.
I am in no way contesting that - it only takes a quick look at how the different sources give varying names and addresses many a time to realize that risks are involved. Then again, we owe our knowledge of the case to the papers to a very high degree, and this knowledge has been sifted through a filter of very critical people for many a decade. What is left is therefore more often than not reliable.
The real problems arise when cherrypicking becomes the order of the day; when reports that deviate are chosen because they seemingly fit a theory.
Then again, reports can deviate in many ways. If we, for example, take the Echo report that speaks of Robert Paul as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street", then we have one single paper mentioning this.
Should we disbelieve it, since it is the sole source telling us this?
Not necessarily, no - since it is not in conflict with the other papers. They do not say anything at all about Paulīs movements. The only paper that points out a direction and movement of Robert Paul is the Echo.
Of course, whenever I mention this passage, I am myself accused of cherrypicking! And maybe thatīs as it should be - caution is healthy. But it deserves to be pointed out that the article potentially is the one that has the most quality built in, going that extra mile to explain more thoroughly what happened.
And this is the crucial thing - we must always judge each and every source on itīs own merits - and people will sometimes be around to imply less noble intentions when we do so...
Indeed, but we must be very, very careful before drawing any conclusions from them.
I donīt think we disagree on that point, Gareth. Not at all, in fact.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment